On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:32:12PM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:24:19PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > N-117 = Mon 30 Jul 06: freeze essential toolchain, kernels
> >
> > Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> > should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
>
> the kernel is an essential piece of our release,
> makes sense to have it in tune with everchanging userspace interfaces
> (alsa, udev to name a few).
Indeed, that is why it is part of base, but putting it in comparison with the
toolchain (glibc, gcc, etc) is overkill.
> > > N-110 = Mon 7 Aug 06: freeze base, non-essential toolchain (including
> > > e.g. cdbs)
> > > N-105 = Mon 14 Aug 06: d-i RC [directly after base freeze]
> > > N-45 = Wed 18 Oct 06: general freeze [about 2 months after base
> > > freeze, d-i RC]
> > > N = Mon 4 Dec 06: release [1.5 months for the general freeze]
> >
> > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time with
> > this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2 month.
>
> we had the chance for sarge, but we weren't ready.
Due in big part to the messed up kernel situation we inherited from in sarge,
remember i proposed delaying sarge to get the unified kernel infrastructure :)
> for etch we will work for our best to be ready.
indeed.
> please don't rush out such mails without consensual position.
like bow and smile and wait forever ? This is not i believe the debian way of
handling things, and i am certainly not the only one taking this kind of
approach, and much more involved and whatever DDs than me have done it like
that, so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther